for massive rate -- rate heights based in pseudoscience and conjecture. time and time again, this congress has rejected in a bipartisan fashion initiatives like cap and trade that would make dramatic policy changes to the way the coal industry operates. the response to a congressional rejection of policy change should not be to go around congress through the rulemaking process. today's hearing about the so- ruled stream protection and the outrageous events surrounding its botched rollout by this administration highlights the lengths they will go to circumvent the policy process by attempting to make changes through rules and regulations. when you dismiss data based on what it says, in the face of no other alternatives, you are making a political decision and not a regulatory one. mr. knox, i have a couple of questions. the report shows that the string protection rule was over a

billion dollar regulation and was the top priority by osm. in the report, you detail how the director called the former regulatory support division chief to his office and expressed concerns about the leaked job loss numbers and how they could embarrass the president, since he had just delivered the state of the union message indicating that jobs would grow in the administration. the report cites and osm official who was the project manager, who quoted the director is telling him that obviously , andhing needs to change he was to figure out a way the assumptions could be changed so the numbers did not look so bad. another osm employee testified that her impression was that this direction ultimately came from the director. the job lossheard

number "was going to be hard to overcome." yet when reporting on your interview with the director regarding changing the baseline "he said he did not know who made the decision." is that even believable? all of theman, things you have just expressed are in our report, and we have reported for consideration by the department, by the bureau, and by this body, by this congress, for action as appropriate. forhe oig is responsible pursuing allegations, gathering facts, and providing that information back to decision makers about what action might be appropriate to take. could a director not be aware of such an important decision that was getting national media coverage through the associated press, and was consuming his agency with meetings, public

conferences, and letters to on a multimillion dollar contract? >> i cannot speak for what the director may or may not have been informed. >> do you believe the director was being honest in his response? >> congressman, we found no evidence that he was being dishonest. >> the statements i just quoted, you think those were his statements? or were they not correct? >> we would have to pick those apart piece by piece. most of those statements were made by the project manager. >> i hope you are picking those piece by piece, and i hope you are not going to allow politics to get in the decision. thank you. that ms. shead question andbrief is recognized. >> thank you. i had a colleague state there was not mining going on inside of streams. i wanted to quote from the

federal register the rules and regulations, activities in and adjacent to streams. application requirements for , youre mining activities application must demonstrate that avoiding disturbance of the stream is not reasonably possible. requirements for surface mining activities within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream, your application must demonstrate that avoiding disturbance of land within 100 feet of the stream either is not reasonably possible or is not necessary to meet requirements. i thought it was important, and i thank you for giving me the opportunity to state that this is indeed an issue for natural resources, clearly, because it is in the rule. i yield back. >> i want to thank all the members for being here. time,. knox, from time to

after these hearings, further -- ifons arise, and we further questions do arise, we will send you a letter and ask you to respond back. and we would ask you to respond back in a very timely manner. what i very much appreciate the report that you have given us. i appreciate the time you have given us and your answers, particularly the last exchange of had with mr. smith, where you there,put the facts out however those are to be interpreted are for us to interpret. i alluded to that when i spoke a moment ago, and i think that is exactly where mr. smith was commenting. others may have different views. but you have given us the facts where these things were said in a timeline that, for lack of a , ifer word, is curious there was not a motivation other than the conclusion you came

from dutch came to. thank you for your report. before we adjourn, i want to make a brief statement, because this has been an ongoing issue. concernsad issues and about this rulemaking process for nearly three years. this ig report raises further questions, what the obama administration did to manipulate the data, to lessen the economic impacts. what the administration is currently doing as they move forward with this rewrite. there is now bipartisan opposition to this rulemaking process. this committee will continue our oversight efforts and our advancement of legislation to put an end to this job destroying rewrite. we alluded to that. hearing, conclude this i want to follow up on something i said last december. one of the topics mentioned was how we could continue with of thisve oversight

administration, how we are running out of patience with this lack of transparency and ongoing refusal to provide us with documents and information that we have been seeking, and in some case seeking for years. as this hearing shows, with many members, our patience is running out. it is troubling that the interior department continues to withhold documents about this matter and is again telling the ig not to provide documents. we have a culture in the office of management and budget refusing to turn over all subpoenaed documents and make witnesses available to the community for our investigation into the secure rural schools program. we have the interior department refusing to turn over documents and make witnesses available in a number of matters, including our investigations into ethics within the department and conflicts of interest by senior officials within the department. been exceedingly patient this past year and have waited to give the new interior

secretary a chance to get up to speed. but as the administration's refusal to provide the necessary information has left us no other choice than to precede and to utilize -- proceed and utilize all available tools of this committee, including the uses of subpoenas, court documents, and potentially subpoenas for witnesses. i want to tell the committee that we are going to continue this. from my perspective, as i mentioned, our patience is wearing thin. we are going to be very aggressive on this this year. business to come before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> turning now to iran and the

agreement reached back in november by the p5 plus one countries on its nuclear program , it was announced earlier today that the terms of the deal will be implemented starting next monday, january 20, when iran will begin limiting its uranium enrichment to 5%, which is commonly used to power reactors. it will be expected to start neutralizing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. sanctions will be eased in exchange for six months. president obama released a statement. and house majority leader eric cantor says --

illinois senator mark kirk wade invia twitter -- weighed via twitter. and california congressman adam schiff says -- next, we are going to turn to alaska senator lisa murkowski. she was speaking at the brookings institution about what can be done to bolster u.s. energy exports. she is currently the top republican on the senate energy and national resources committee. this ran about 50 minutes. brookings.to i am the managing director here. we are delighted that we are joined today by senator murkowski. cashf my favorite johnny songs going up was called "springtime in alaska."

is springtime it in alaska, it is 40 below. by that standard, it is downright balmy in washington, d.c. the senator is the top republican on the senate energy committee. territory as the u.s. west of the mississippi. she thinks in large terms about issues like energy in particular, and has a big track record on this issue. today we are here to discuss the implications on the domestic economy, on our national security and our energy security. and with the whole or vortex being all the rage, we forgot about the polarization that often chills washington. senator murkowski is an important voice because of her ability to work across party

lines. she is the only republican senator from a west coast state, and only one of three u.s. senators ever elected by right in ballot, each means she speaks ballot, which means she speaks for a nonpartisan groundswell. we hope she feels warm here at brookings on a cold day. she has been a consistent supporter of sensible, pragmatic energy policy. that means a stand against subsidies for oil and gas companies where warranted, that also for the right kinds of investment, infrastructure, and policies that connect us to the world. she understands the vital role of energy in our economy. not just oil production in alaska, but renewable and natural gas across the country. she has supported oil production and exploration in alaska, of course, but also continental shelf oil and gas leasing,

horizontal drilling into the coastal plain, and developing technologies for renewable energies and carbon sequestration. she understands this takes place in the global context. alaska not only borders canada to its east, but as syrup -- as sarah palin reminds us, russia to its west. economic potential benefits as well as impact on energy prices, reduction, and the broader economy back home. the secretary of energy has said these issues are all worth re- examining. so we are really delighted that senator murkowski is here to have a conversation with us about these topics today. oilmericans consume less and produce more of it, it is time to revisit energy policy. but energy is not just about how we get and use fuel. it is also about the environmental consequences.

senator murkowski is a terrific guest, one of the few senate republicans who has argued we need to take climate change seriously. on a day when many of us are wishing for more warming around here, we also look ahead to a coming january weekend this coming weekend where temperatures are predicted to be back in the 60's. understanding that the science is real but also emerging and hasving, the senator supported energy efficiency legislation and a greater understanding of the need to adapt to a warmer world. beforehand, we were talking about the fact that one of her favorite ski resorts near anchorage is starting to lose its base at the bottom because it has been too warm out there. we would be happy to trade places with them today i am sure. she is also focused on making sure climate and energy efforts do not burden middle-class families unduly. she has been firm in asking countries such as india and china to take a similar stand when dealing with carbon emissions.

there are opportunities for rethinking energy trade, the focus of today's conversation. we look forward from hearing senator murkowski on how our country will answer important questions about the changing global energy landscape. with that, we are delighted to have senator murkowski. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction. for those of you that may be standing in the back, there are some seats up front. this is not like church. and i am not going to ask you the questions. you will have the opportunity to ask me. i am pleased to see so many of you here this morning. rates will to the brookings institution for the opportunity to be here today on a good, brisk washington morning. i am not going to comment on the weather other than to say we will take that whole are for tax rtex back.lar vo send ito not like it,

back north, where it belongs. i would like to go straight to the heart of the matter that i wish to discuss with you today. this is where we are as a nation when it comes to our energy production. according to the energy information administration, last july saw u.s. domestic energy production reached over seven quadrillion btu, the highest monthly total on record. let me repeat that. we are producing more energy today than ever before in this country. this dramatic increase in production from all sources of energy has resulted in a dramatic sea change in our nation's energy trade. in the process, we are creating jobs. we are lowering prices.

we are reducing our trade deficit. think about where we are right now. we are selling coal to the netherlands, morocco, and germany. france,te fuel to chile, and argentina. petroleum coke to turkey and china. gasoline to colombia, brazil, and panama. israel, andbritain, nigeria. natural gas to canada and mexico. and natural gas liquids to switzerland, honduras, and aruba. i could go on. i know that you probably know these facts well, and did not come here today to recite facts. , as good ascause this story is, these developments have transpired in spite of the federal government, not because of it, as the to imply. seeks

the rules on energy trade were written long ago for a now- bygone world in which scarcity, not abundance, was the prevailing moral -- prevailing mindset. a hodgepodge of regulations has accumulated over the better part of a century, kind of like barnacles on the whole of a ship. hull of a ship. it may briefly sketch out the maze we are dealing with. the state department reviews buts-border oil pipelines, petroleum products, crude oil, and condensate fall under the commerce department. energy department grants export licenses for natural gas, but the commerce department permits exports of natural gas liquids. ferc regulates cross-border natural gas pipelines. --e and her noble energy

renewable energy flows to trading partners while nuclear exports are tightly regulated, as they should be. even professionals in the energy sector are unaware of the role federal trade agencies play in this area. the export import bank, the overseas private investment corporation, and the trade and development agency, and other entities, advance the u.s. energy trade. in legal terms, what we are talking about our laws such as 1938, thel gas act of atomic energy act of 1954, the energy policy and conservation executive5, and orders that stretch all the way back to the eisenhower administration. at thecent workshop center for strategic energy studies, they encourage

participants to think about the regulation of energy exports in terms of the underlying chemistry. the chemical formulation for methane is ch4. you have one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. this can be sold to canada and mexico through a pipeline without much of a regulatory hurdle. if you want to build a facility seaborneefies gas for transport to japan, you need a license from the energy department to export it and another approval from for to build your facility. years.ocess can take if you are determined to build an lng facility, you are in luck. one of the and get projects our government is helping finance over there. moleculeke a methane

and attach a few chemicals to the commerce department will grant you an export license without much delay at all. what you do not want to fiddle with the formula too much or you might end up with a barrel of crude oil, the export of which is generally prohibited unless you can process it through a refinery, in which case you can export it as diesel. you can also ship the crude to canada, where apparently the laws of chemistry do not apply. the regulatory edifice that governs the export of american- and atergy is antiquated times, i would suggest, even absurd. while there is no perfection under the sun, we surely can do better than this.

today, i am releasing a white paper. this is a second that i have released. it is called "a signal to the world: regulating the architecture of u.s. energy exports." it follows on the energy 2020 blueprint and the lng white paper i released last year. last year, i had the opportunity to release "energy 2020." we have since done one white paper. this is the second, and there will be a third soon. i have two goals with this particular paper. the first is to highlight the facts. is theus about the facts basis of productive dialogue. my second goal is to help frame about the state of u.s. energy exports, the architecture of the energy trade. of although certain aspects

the energy exports stories have been in the public by for quite eye fore now -- public quite some time now, i am not aware of another report it shows a full picture through a single lens. releasing reports from the nonpartisan congressional research service that contain a great deal of information, some of which is not generally available, about areas aspects of the u.s. energy trade. the facts tell me we must modernize the regulations that exports,ergy demonstrating to the world that we are committed -- committed to leading on issues of energy, the environment, and trade. i am not proposing comprehensive energy export legislation. i believe that the executive branch has the statutory authority to implement most of these ideas on its own.

needf the president does help from the legislative branch, he will always have an open partner in me on the energy committee. i am willing to introduce small, targeted bills to move the ball forward as needed. but i do want to today advance several key principles. they are threefold. to assess this energy architecture that we are talking about, particularly where we have seen exports banned. the second principle is really theo no harm where regulations we have in place are working. the third principle is to look to efficiencies within our regulatory framework. see if we cannot work to do better. there are parts of this antiquated architecture where exports are effectively banned.

we should think carefully about the conditions in which those bands were put and consider whether or not they still serve the public interest, if they ever did. energy sources in this area come to mind, crude oil and condensate. of crudethe prospect oil exports this past summer at aia's annual conference. at the time, i said the debate could come sooner than expected, and here we are today. the basics are ready simple. the shale plays are yielding lto, light, tight oil. finding capacity is concentrated in the gulf coast, geared toward heavier grades of crude. as many analysts have pointed

out at the eia, ihs global, and elsewhere, various mechanisms exist for moving lto out into the market. to lighterhipped grade refineries on the east coast, for example, or blended with heavier grades. it can be shipped to canada. refineries can be modified to accommodate lighter grades. with minimal exceptions, the export of crude oil is prohibited by law. it is my understanding that right now we are exporting about 65,000 barrels per day to canada. but that is essentially it. there will come a time, however, when we will have an unsustainable glut of this light crude. it may be next year. it may be sooner than that. it may be a matter of months. the free market works wonders, but it cannot work magic.

condensate is a byproduct of oil and gas production. these hydrocarbons are extremely light oil. they can be refined and exported as natural gas liquids, but otherwise, trade is prohibited. thatcommentators assume congress and the administration will be slow to address this issue. opponents of oil exports will of course raise the specter of rising gasoline prices, i think to scare off elected officials. as many of you here in this room , i spent at least a good several months thinking about this export issue. the point of deliberation is eventually to arrive at an answer. hung juries may be the default here in washington, but they do not sell well in alaska. calling for ending the prohibition on crude oil and

condensate exports. the current system is inefficient, and may lead to supply disruptions that we can ill afford. lifting the ban will send a strong signal to the energy markets that as a nation we are serious. countryerious as a about our emerging role as a major hydrocarbon producer. believe that the administration retains enough statutory authority to lift the ban on its own. although the president has the authority to declare it in the natural -- national interest to lift the ban, another path is for the department of commerce to approve an application for expert of crude oil or condensate under a provision in the law permitting the applicant -- permitting the application, that can be demonstrated

those fuels cannot reasonably be marketed here in the united states. then, in our nation's refining capacity has already emerged, and common sense suggests the mismatch should meet these qualifications. if the administration is , orlling to act on its own if that statutory authority needs further modification, i am prepared to introduce legislation to modernize the laws. opponents of trade will be quick to assert, too often without citing any evidence, that exports of crude oil will raise gasoline prices for american consumers. this claim is wrong, but it must be dealt with immediately, and it must be dealt with head-on. i have said repeatedly, and i firmly mean it, that the goal must be to make energy more affordable.

if we want to bring down gasoline prices, we should be opening up federal lands to energy production, not closing them off. i can think of a few places in alaska that could be opened up immediately for new oil production, which would help to lower gasoline prices. small but rising amounts of crude are already being exported to canada, as i noted. it is permitted by statute. seen no crisis in gasoline prices here at home as a consequence of that. modernizing the export architecture would reduce volatility by making world energy markets more efficient. do not see a looming run on the crude oil bank out there. lifting the prohibition on crude oil exports will serve to increase domestic oil production

, and the entry of this oil onto the global markets will put downward pressure on international prices. all things equal, this combination will help the american consumer. i want to be abundantly clear this morning. view, iss quo, in my not beneficial to the american people. need to actat we before the crude oil export ban causes problems in the u.s. oil production, which will raise prices and therefore hurt american jobs. the second principle i mentioned is doing no harm. it is important that we do not harm. these are the areas were regulatory review is already effectively streamlined. appearr, coyle exports to be keeping pace in world markets. although efforts to forestall this expansion in trade must be

with i also see no problem the regulatory structures surrounding renewables, natural gas liquids, and petroleum products. the commerce department already covers those, and i believe is doing a commendable job. principleprincipal -- -- we should be looking for areas in which existing relations could be more effectively implemented. isther the state department the appropriate agency in which to vest authority for cross- border oil pipelines is certainly a fair question to ask. in the course of its review of the keystone xl, it has been counterproductive, and frankly i think it has unduly strained our relationship with canada. the department of energy's slow licensesut lng export

is worthy of examination. secretary moneys -- moniz appears to have quickened the pace of approvals, but the queue is still full. toenses take too long approve when a project must go through rigorous safety review. a leaderhas long been in the nuclear technology trade. i am particularly excited about small modular reactors, which have received a great deal of attention in research and development. current designs can provide strong nuclear safeguards and maintain our commitment to international security. renovating our export architecture will strengthen our global posture and send a strong signal to the world that must be heard. policymakersave

-- speak of the eagle furred eagleford. in tokyo and new delhi, they watch the marsalis and the permian. in russia, they wonder about the potential in the monterey. it is hard to put a price on it. in action also has a cost. renovate the crude oil export architecture could lead to disruptions in supply and production. can only have this conversation because of our , andy resurgence opportunity born of technological progress and a true american grit. theican-made energy is safest and most environmentally responsible energy on earth. if any nation is exporting energy to the world, bringing

electricity to those without power, heat to those in the cold, the united states should be that leader. with that, i thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts with you, to share my new white paper on the energy architecture. happy to take questions about where we may go from here. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, senator murkowski. that was terrific and .rovocative i set of comments and recommendations. the white paper, which i had a chance to look at, is quite an important piece of work. it covers a wide range of sex your-- of sectors, as did

remarks. charles adventure is a senior fellow at brookings and head of our energy initiative and foreign policy programs. i will ask a question and get one myself, and then turn it over to the audience for further queue and the -- q&a. >> thank you for i think one of the most important speeches i have heard in washington in a long time. i think the complexities of the regulatory process you outline or probably not known even to everyone in this room, and certainly not to your fellow members on capitol hill. i think you have done a great service by doing this. i would also like to recognize staff, whoey on your coordinated closely with my staff in putting this together. i think a lot of hard work went into making this happen. asking perhaps an unfair question. as you note, each energy source is different and requires a different regulatory process. do you see any merit in the

regulations of governing energy projects for putting a reasonable timeframe on the process by which the respective federal agencies would have to come up with a yes or no answer, rather than this great limbo we sometimes see, as we have for example on keystone? >> i think it is one of those areas we can look to for a possible solution to the delay, of impasse, the lack certainty that you have within an industry. we recognizeings back here in washington, d.c. is , when we do not have certainty in our policies, it costs dollars. it costs jobs. it costs our competitiveness.

we can think of ways improve the regulatory process, reasonable timelines are one area that we can and should be looking to. you have to recognize there may be situations where you have to extend it out. to do a bypass, if you will. but right now, for instance, forin the approval process lng export license, there is no certainty whatsoever out there. be one month. it could be two years. it could be never. meantime, you have investors that are waiting. you have those who are seeking these jobs. you have those that are looking , buthe product to purchase no certainty within our process.

it is one of those areas we should look to, to provide more certainty. >> i was struck in your remarks how you both took a step back from calling for a comprehensive piece of legislation on the exports piece, and calling for executive action in some of these regards. wonder how you see the broader political landscape. it suggests a sense of caution and not high expectations for what can get accomplished 18 blocks is to appear. 18 blocks east of here. >> i would remind you that on tuesday, our first tuesday back in january 2014 -- let the races began. we are already into fall campaign season, in terms of the 113th congress. and when that happens, it is just more difficult to advance legislation.

and not only move it through one body, but move it through both and get it signed by the president. i am trying to be practical about where we are. as we have looked at this issue, i have suggested in my comments that i am prepared to introduce legislation if necessary. i am not certain it is absolutely necessary. believe that the authority currently resides with the they can branch, that make these actions in the national best interest. within the department of commerce. it takes initiative by the executive to do just that. if they need some encouragement, i am happy to provide that. but i do think it is also fair to recognize that some of the acts i noted in my comments have been around since the 1930's, the 1950's.

the most recent is the mid 1970's. it is appropriate to review these to see if they are as current as they need to be. my suggestion is that they are not. maybe we approach it on two fronts. maybe we advance legislation that will allow for modernization while encouraging the administration to act on its own, with the authorities they currently have. >> ladies, the floor is open. that you identify yourself when you ask a question. and please ask a question. we will go here. becausese speak up, this room has terrible acoustics. ask michael tubman, the senate tubman, thel exports, and the

benefits of using more at home. in the crude export debate, what are your thoughts on the balance between exporting more crude and perhaps increasing refining capacity in the united states, taking advantage of some of that increased capacity to export more products? like thank you for the question. you fornk -- >> thank the question. i do think we can do more to increase refining capacity. we have seen those adjustments, reconfiguration within many of our refineries to accommodate the lto, the light to tight oil. get to a mismatch i have talked about. we are not able to gain alignment because we cannot continue with the retrofit of

those refineries. we have got to be honest -- have got to be honest in terms of our ability to bring any new refineries on line. the last time we had a refinery built in this country was decades ago. i think we have to be cognizant of that in terms of doing more to build out those value-added products for export. we have certainly seen that here in this country. and it got the attention of many in this country who could -- who did not understand how much we actually export, in terms of those value-added products. when i am talking about the ability to export our crude, i think it is important to recognize that when we are talking about and all-of-the- above energy policy, i would like to see it relate to all products,ur energy

whether it comes from crude oil, from natural gas, from , the refined products that we are able to do -- let us allow for a level of trade that is full and across the board. can we be doing more to create the jobs here in this country through our refining capacity, and advancing value-added products? yes, but will we be able to do even more as we increase production domestically, increase the opportunity for jobs, work to address our trade imbalance? this is where i think we have opportunities with the export of crude. >> i am from a company that

extracts crude. this is of great interest to us. the paper produced with coordination and input from other members of the committee -- what reaction have you gotten from other members of the energy committee? the you get a sense of consensus around this issue? are you aligned with other members? 2020, whichy energy i advanced last year, that was the work of my energy committee we worked with-- committee members in terms of where are your priorities. but in terms of actually putting pen to paper, that was the work of a pretty strong team on our energy committee. the white paper being released withmorning will be shared not only all members on the energy committee, but i want all of my colleagues within the senate to have a copy of what i

feel is a pretty important document. really kind of shining a spotlight in a very readable format, 20 pages, to bring them current. i cannot give you the reaction from my other colleagues. them in ak you to ask few days, after they have had an opportunity to review. >> david, did you have a question? i am sorry. behind you, yes? winfield withan bloomberg news. are you giving the administration a deadline to act? at what point would you introduce legislation this year? suggestnot going to that by july 1, if we have not seen something, that i am going to advance one thing or another.

hope isill certainly that with this discussion that i think really kicks off today, the administration will start looking critically, although i believe they already have started to look more closely at this issue -- and that is certainly evidenced by secretary moniz's comments last month about the need to review some of our policies as they relate to export oil. deadline to the administration, i am not prepared to do that. but i do -- i am very concerned about the signals that we may be seeing in the not-too-distant future. as i suggested, we might see this mismatch become more apparent in six months. it may be sooner than that. but i do not want us to be sitting around and waiting until

such time as things really do get out of balance. because then it is more to jump in and make those adjustments. i think we need to be looking at it now. i want to move this aggressively. administration will engage with me and really begin to act. >> new leadership on the senate energy committee will help move that legislation along? know whenot exactly we might see some changes there. i will suggest to you that senator landrieu made a comment just this week, also suggesting att it was timely to look our export policies.

so i think that is a good indication that she would be willing to take a good, hard and at where we are today, how we might be able to modernize the energy architect or. ask a question in back, by the wall? alicia, with 21st-century science and technology magazine. i know the white paper you wrote is specifically on exports of natural gas reserves, etc., recently discovered in the united states, that i want to ask you something about the being of nuclear power hopefully, eventually, a predominant source of energy production in north america and the rest of the world. is looking at nuclear power this year as a world energy source. fact that there is hype in north america about these natural gas reserves,

there is also discussion about moving away -- this is 20, 30 years down the line -- moving away from an extraction economy. i was wondering if you could share what ever discussion there in thehe senate, congress, about this view of nuclear power. i hope we are not going to be left hind in that, because i think there is promise in that as an energy source. >> coming from a state that gas, coal,l, natural we do not have nuclear in my state yet. but there are many who are looking with great interest at the small modular reactors. great promise there. and i have long been one that anysuggested that to have level of what we call energy nuclear must that

be a strong piece of that energy portfolio. and as aggressive as i will be on domestic production, including renewables, i want to focus, and really urgency, when it comes to doing more with nuclear in this country. i think that is too important to the energy equation. as you know, there are efforts in the senate currently to deal with the issue of nuclear waste. we all know that is kind of the elephant under the rug, or whatever the expression is, that has been causing a hold up to try to congress advance nuclear within the energy portfolio.

we have, i think, made great joint effortshe between the authorizer's and the appropriators on the energy committee and the energy and water appropriations in building legislation that we think is responsive and can enjoy support in both the house and the senate. i am hopeful that we would be able to continue that effort going into this new year. i think it will help us as we try to advance nuclear. and again, as i suggested earlier, this is a hard environment at this juncture, to pass freestanding legislation, particularly on something that generates is much discussion as nuclear waste. i'm not so naïve to think that just because we think it's a good bill that we can snap our fingers and make it happen. but i think you have a strong

commitment from a good group of folks to try to advance that. if we are not successful this year, i hope that will be in the next congress. >> i was struck about how you were thinking about what can be accomplished now and longer- term, building various coalitions. i was struck in the white paper that was beyond the narrow regulatory things, talking about the different sectors, that in each of the pieces, there is an infrastructure dimension to them. charlie and i were in north dakota and were struck by the flareup of natural gas. and for the oil coming out of there all being shipped by rail. talk a little bit about that looking forward, where you see the most important infrastructure investments and

what kind of support might be on both sides of the aisle where republicans can be more focused on infrastructure. >> it is absolutely an essential part to the discussion when we are talking about our energy architecture. it is one thing to discuss the availability of the resources going from a relative position of energy scarcity to one of true abundance, particularly when it comes to natural gas. and as we are able to utilize technologies to access oil resources as well. everybody wants to talk about that. but unless you can move that, you are stranded. alaska is a perfect case in point. we have more of everytng